- 1 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5034 OF 2020(MV-I) BETWEEN: MR RAMACHANDRA S/O MR. THIMAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT JALAKKAR HOSAMANE BELALU, BELAL, BELTHANGADY DAKSHINA KANNADA, PIN - 574 240 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. THIMMAPPA S/O PUTTANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEAS R/AT D NO 4-42 NADUVADKA HOUSE VALALU POST, BAJATHURU VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK D.K DISTRICT - 574 241 2. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MAXIMUMS COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, LHH ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, PIN-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.N. KRISHNASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 02.06.2020, PASSED IN MVC NO.479/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE VI-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MACT, D.K. MANGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 13.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 02.06.2020 passed in MVC No.479/2018 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, (for brevity, "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant, came to be dismissed. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 07.01.2018, at about 6.00 p.m., the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA- 21-V-4287, ridden by one Rajesh. When they reached near Dompada Palke, Belalu Village, the rider, by riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle and caused the accident, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, the - 3 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal seeking just compensation. 3. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant had failed to establish that he was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle and that the accident occurred on account of the actionable negligence of its rider. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ravishankar Shastry. G., for the appellant and the learned counsel Sri. A.N. Krishna Swamy for the respondent No.2 and also perused the materials on record. 5. Apart from urging several other contentions, learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition despite the claimant having produced the FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, IMV report and charge-sheet, which unequivocally establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by its rider. It was submitted that the Tribunal discarded the police records solely on the basis of the - 4 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 medical case sheet/Doctor's progress notes, in the absence of any acceptable evidence to discredit the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police. 6. It was further contended that the Insurance Company neither examined the Investigating Officer nor adduced any independent evidence to substantiate its plea that the claimant himself was riding the motorcycle or that the rider had been falsely introduced. It was argued that the Tribunal misread the evidence of PW.1 and drew unwarranted inferences from the medical records. It was therefore submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on negligence and liability are contrary to the evidence available on record and are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, learned counsel prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and awarding just compensation. 7. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.3585/2022. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent– Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award. He contended that the claimant has failed to establish - 5 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 the manner of the accident as pleaded in the claim petition. It was submitted that the medical records disclose the history of the accident as involving a collision between a motorcycle and a lorry, whereas the version subsequently furnished by the injured in the complaint and the subsequent medical records is wholly inconsistent. 9. It was further submitted that, during the course of cross-examination, the claimant admitted that he had lost control over the motorcycle and fell into a ditch. He also admitted that he was not aware as to whether any criminal case had been registered in connection with the accident in question. It was therefore contended that the testimony of PW.1 clearly corroborates the history of the road traffic accident recorded in the medical records. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. In the light of the rival contentions and the material available on record, the sole point that would arises for my consideration is : "Whether the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the claimant failed to establish that he was travelling as a pillion rider and that - 6 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-21-V-4287, and consequently denying him compensation?" 11. As could be gathered from the records, the occurrence of the accident on 07.01.2018 at about 6.00 p.m. is not in dispute. Immediately after the accident, the claimant/injured was shifted to A.J. Hospital and Research Centre, Mangaluru. In the Emergency Department of the said hospital, the history of the road traffic accident was recorded on the basis of the information furnished by the injured as "RTA (Bike vs. Truck) near Ujire (Belthangadi) at 6.30 p.m.", which came to be entered on 07.01.2018 at about 11.45 p.m. 12. Further, in the Doctor's Progress Notes maintained by the said hospital, the history of the road traffic accident is recorded as under: "Alleged history of RTA at around 6.30 pm at Belal (Ujire) a bike hit by lorry following which he had a active bleeding from the wound over the anterior part of the thigh and he had pain which was sudden in was sudden in onset and it gradually progressed. He could not bear his - 7 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 weight then he was brought here for further management and evaluation" 13. However, on the following day, i.e., 08.01.2018, the injured himself lodged a complaint before the Dharmasthala Police while undergoing treatment in the hospital, alleging that at the time of the accident he was travelling as a pillion rider on Motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-21-V-4287 and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the said motorcycle by its rider. Based on the said complaint, an FIR came to be registered and, upon completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed a charge-sheet against the rider of the motorcycle. 14. On a careful perusal of the testimony of PW.1, it is evident that, during the course of his cross-examination, he categorically admitted as under: "I lost control over the bike and fall in a ditch. I do not know any criminal case has been registered in connection accident in issue." 15. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid admission of PW.1 with the medical case sheet and the Doctor's Progress Notes, it is evident that the accident occurred on account of the - 8 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 claimant himself losing control of the motorcycle and falling into a ditch. Another circumstance which lends credence to this conclusion is that, had the claimant in fact been travelling as a pillion rider, the rider of the motorcycle would also have ordinarily sustained injuries in the accident. Curiously, the claimant has remained completely silent on this aspect and has neither offered any explanation nor examined the alleged rider before the Tribunal. 16. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the medical case sheet and the Doctor's Progress Notes, which were recorded at the earliest point of time, immediately after the accident. Significantly, the history of the accident was furnished by the injured himself, which is wholly inconsistent with the version subsequently set up in the complaint lodged before the police and the evidence tendered before the Tribunal. The history recorded in the medical records is not a mere isolated entry; rather, it contains a detailed narration of the manner in which the accident occurred as disclosed by the injured himself. 17. No doubt, the FIR was registered and the charge- sheet came to be filed against the rider of the motorcycle on - 9 - MFA No. 5034 of 2020 the basis of the complaint lodged by the injured. However, the said complaint was lodged only on the following day, i.e., on 08.01.2018 at about 2.00 to 3.00 p.m. Until then, the history of the accident consistently remained as one involving a collision between a motorcycle and a truck. In the above circumstances, it can reasonably be inferred that the complaint lodged by the injured was an afterthought, apparently with a view to claiming compensation, at the instance of the owner of the motorcycle and with the aid of the police. This aspect of the matter has been meticulously considered by the Tribunal while recording its findings. 18. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and has no application to the circumstances of the present case. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/K